********************************************************
NOTICE
********************************************************
This document was converted from Microsoft Word.
Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.
All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.
Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.
If you need the complete document, download the
Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat version.
*****************************************************************
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
)
)
In the Matter of File No. EB-10-TC-468
)
Main Street Telephone Company NAL/Acct. No.: 201132170021
)
Apparent Liability for Forfeiture FRN: 0007630379
)
)
NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE
Adopted: June 7, 2011 Released: June 16, 2011
By the Commission:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find
that Main Street Telephone Company ("Main Street" or "Company") has
apparently willfully and repeatedly violated section 201(b) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act" or
"Act"), by "cramming" monthly charges for its dial-around long
distance service on consumers' local telephone bills without
authorization of any kind from them. Based upon our review of the
facts and surrounding circumstances, we find that Main Street is
apparently liable for a proposed forfeiture in the amount of four
million two hundred thousand dollars ($4,200,000).
II. BACKGROUND
2. Cramming, the practice of adding charges to a customer's local
telephone bill without the customer's authorization, results in
significant consumer harm. Charges can often range from $2.99 to as
much as $19.99 per month and can go undetected by consumers for many
months or longer because they are not generally disclosed clearly or
conspicuously on the bill. The cramming entity can be the customer's
own local exchange carrier ("LEC") or an unaffiliated third-party
service provider such as Main Street, in the instant case. The charges
can be for additional telephone services, voice mail and similar
services, or for other unrelated products and services such as chat
lines, diet plans, and cosmetics.
3. The Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") began its investigation of Main
Street on September 23, 2010, by issuing a letter of inquiry to Main
Street requesting information and documents relating to its charges
for long distance service. In its initial response, dated November 30,
2010, Main Street represented, among other things, that it provides
domestic interexchange telecommunications service on a resale basis
through a "dial-around" service plan. Main Street's Save4Less plan
offers customers 284 minutes of long distance calling per month for
$13.90, a rate of 4.9-c- per minute if all the minutes are used.
Consumers must call Main Street's toll free access number and enter a
PIN to use its service. Main Street states that it "currently services
approximately 19,000 Save4Less customers."
4. Main Street's process for billing consumers involves three parties:
Main Street; its billing aggregator, Billing Service Group ("BSG");
and the LEC that issues the bill to the consumer. BSG uses the name
"USBI" in billing for long distance services. The LEC is compensated
by BSG for placing the charges on the consumers' bills; BSG is paid by
Main Street to manage billing requests and payments between the LEC
and Main Street; and Main Street ultimately receives the money
collected from the consumers who pay the charges. Generally, the
third-party carrier supplies only a consumer's telephone number and
the amount to be charged to the billing aggregator, which directs the
LEC to place the charge on the consumer's telephone bill. Proof of
consumer authorization is not provided by the third-party carrier nor
required by the LEC.
5. [REDACTED]. [REDACTED]. Online enrollment forms used to sign up
customers allow for the input of the consumer's first name, last name,
address, home telephone number, email address and date of birth. The
enrollment form contains Main Street's terms and conditions and a
statement that the customer signing up for the long distance service
plan will be billed on their telephone bill.
6. In the course of the investigation, Main Street identified nearly
[REDACTED] consumer complaints about its service, and provided copies
of more than [REDACTED] of those complaints, which the Bureau
reviewed. These included complaints that had been filed not only with
the FCC, but also with state regulatory authorities, the Better
Business Bureau, or with Main Street directly. All of the complainants
contended that Main Street had charged them for service without their
authorization.
7. These complaints notwithstanding, Main Street claims that it "has
rigorous procedures in place to verify each order and its authenticity
before a customer receives any charge for the service." According to
Main Street, a "Confirmation Page" requires customers to reconfirm the
personal data entered on the enrollment form and discloses the billing
information. Main Street contends that it validates the orders by
comparing the name listed on the order form with the name registered
to the telephone number; examining the email address; and verifying
that the state, zip code, and telephone area code match. Main Street
asserts that the order is accepted only if the customer's last name,
address, and telephone number match.
8. According to Main Street, if the order passes the Company's validation
process, it then sends three emails to confirm the order, describe the
service, how to use the service and how to cancel it. The consumer is
not required to confirm that the emails were received or to otherwise
respond to the emails before Main Street begins charging for the
service.
III. DISCUSsION
A. Violation of Section 201(b) of the Act
9. Section 201(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that "[a]ll
charges, practices, classifications, and regulations for and in
connection with [interstate or foreign] communication service [by wire
or radio], shall be just and reasonable, and any such charge,
practice, classification, or regulation that is unjust or unreasonable
is hereby declared to be unlawful. . . ." The Commission has found
that the inclusion of unauthorized charges and fees on consumers'
telephone bills is an "unjust and unreasonable" practice under section
201(b).
10. We find that Main Street has willfully and repeatedly placed, or
caused to be placed, charges on consumers' telephone bills for
services the consumers did not request or authorize. As indicated
above, each of the more than [REDACTED] consumer complaints that the
Bureau reviewed - whether they were filed with the FCC, state
regulatory authorities, the Better Business Bureau or with Main Street
directly - contends that Main Street charged consumers for service
without their authorization. The complainants consistently state they
did not sign up for Main Street's service, did not have any contact
with Main Street prior to discovering the charges, and in most cases,
do not even know the person whom Main Street alleges authorized the
service.
11. For instance, [REDACTED] [REDACTED] experience with Main Street is
far from unique. Complainant [REDACTED]. Similarly, Complainant
[REDACTED]. Complainant [REDACTED]. Complainant [REDACTED].
12. [REDACTED].
13. In some cases, the consumers who were signed up for Main Street's
services were surprised to find out that the authorization form they
had allegedly provided was over the Internet because they do not own
computers or have Internet access. For example, Complainant
[REDACTED]. Complainant [REDACTED].. Complainant [REDACTED].
Complainant [REDACTED].
14. Other consumers pointed out that they had unlimited long distance
service with another carrier and would have no need to pay a monthly
fee for additional service with Main Street. For example, Complainant
[REDACTED]. Complainant [REDACTED]. Complainant [REDACTED].
15. The complainants' contention that Main Street "crammed" charges for
its dial-around long distance service on their bills is corroborated
by the fact that, between March 2010 and February 2011, Main Street
placed charges on a total of over [REDACTED] monthly telephone bills.
Nevertheless, in response to our LOI request that the Company provide
information about the its "customers" who actually used its service,
Main Street stated that it [REDACTED]. We find this implausible given
that Main Street claims to provide customers with 284 minutes per
month for a monthly fee and that customers will incur additional
charges after those minutes are used - unless, of course, it is
unnecessary because so few "customers" actually use the service.
16. To the extent it actually uses them, Main Street's validation and
verification processes are clearly inadequate to confirm that the
person who "enrolled" in its plan, i.e., the one whom Main Street will
charge for service, in fact authorized the service. As indicated, Main
Street asserts that it confirms every service order using a five-stage
validation process to ensure that the customer has both ordered the
services and authorized billing for the services. The fact remains
that, in many cases, the name and address in Main Street's enrollment
records do not match the name and address of the customer who was
charged for service. Similarly, the email address used to sign up for
service often does not belong to the customer who is billed for the
service. The only information that consistently belonged to the
customer whom the Company charged was, in fact, his or her telephone
number. Moreover, we find no evidence that, as Main Street suggests,
consumers authorized the service and then "did not read the
information presented to them during the sign-up process, had
forgotten that they signed up for the service, or someone else in the
household signed up for and authorized the service." Based on our
review of the record, it appears that any validation procedure that
Main Street actually performed simply verified the general existence
of the telephone number and that the number was a working number - and
in no way verified that an enrollee actually in any way intended to
subscribe to Main Street's dial-around service.
17. Main Street's claims that it "verifies" a service request by sending
three emails to the email address identified on the form is likewise
of no consequence. The process does not require any action on the part
of the consumer to confirm either that the consumer received the
emails or that the consumer signed up for or agreed to be charged for
Main Street's service. Indeed, many of the complainants assert they
never received any emails or other communications from Main Street
regarding its long distance service. This would not be surprising
given that, as noted above, the email address in Main Street's records
is generally not the consumer's. Even if a consumer did, in fact,
receive this verification material, it is possible, if not probable,
that he or she might reasonably discard the material as "junk" mail or
spam, given that the consumer did not create a relationship with, or
even know of the existence of, Main Street. On these facts, if a
consumer did not authorize Main Street's service, the mere act of
sending an email without requiring a response from the consumer is not
sufficient "verification."
18. Main Street's success in what appears to be a constructively
fraudulent enterprise seems to rely on the fact that individuals and
businesses the Company enrolled in its service failed to notice the
unauthorized charges on their multipage telephone bills and so simply
proceeded to pay them, often unaware that they contained charges from
an entity other than their own telephone company. The charges were
often listed on the last pages of the bill and/or did not contain
clear descriptions of the services provided. It would be difficult for
someone who had never heard of Main Street or "USBI" (the billing
aggregator) to recognize an unauthorized charge from them on the bill.
19. If and when consumers ever discovered Main Street's charges, the
Company required them to expend significant time and effort to attempt
to have charges removed from their bills. For example, in many cases
we reviewed, Main Street made it difficult for consumers to obtain
full refunds of unauthorized charges, and only offered consumers a
partial refund. Complainant [REDACTED]. In other cases, refunds were
not provided until after the consumer filed a complaint with a state
or federal regulatory authority. For example, Complainant [REDACTED].
20. As another example of the difficulty consumers experienced in
attempting to obtain refunds, Complainant [REDACTED]. Main Street
similarly refused to issue a full refund to Complainant [REDACTED].
Numerous other complainants say they were told by Main Street's
customer service representatives that someone in the home had ordered
the services and that the enrollment form was proof that the service
was authorized. Many consumers were instructed to submit their
complaints in writing. Others were forced to make several calls to
Main Street before any refund was issued; some were hung up on when
they called Main Street.
21. Based on the record, we conclude that Main Street apparently has
willfully and repeatedly placed, or caused to be placed, charges on
complainants' telephone bills that they never authorized. The facts
suggest that Main Street engaged in this conduct deliberately. To the
extent it did not, we find that Main Street either knew, or reasonably
should have known, through numerous customer inquiries and complaints
that many of its customers had not authorized service and that most
were likely not using its service - yet Main Street nevertheless
proceeded to charge these consumers for months and sometimes years.
Main Street's dismissive responses to the consumer complaints is
further evidence that it apparently is deliberately billing consumers
for services they did not authorize. Accordingly, we find that Main
Street's cramming constitutes an unjust and unreasonable practice and
demonstrates apparent willful and repeated violations of section
201(b) of the Act.
A. Proposed Forfeiture Pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act
22. Section 503(b)(1) of the Act states that any person that willfully or
repeatedly fails to comply with any provision of the Act or any rule,
regulation, or order issued by the Commission, shall be liable to the
United States for a forfeiture penalty. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the
Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $150,000
for each violation, or each day of a continuing violation, up to a
statutory maximum of $1,500,000 for a single act or failure to act by
common carriers. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, we
consider the factors enumerated in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act,
including "the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the
violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of
culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such
other matters as justice may require." Although the forfeiture
guidelines do not establish a forfeiture amount for unjust or
unreasonable practices, such as the imposition of unauthorized charges
on consumers' telephone bills, the guidelines do state that, ". . .
any omission of a specific rule violation from the. . . [forfeiture
guidelines]. . . should not signal that the Commission considers any
unlisted violation as nonexistent or unimportant." The Commission
retains the discretion to depart from the guidelines and issue
forfeitures on a case-by-case basis, under its general forfeiture
authority contained in section 503 of the Act.
23. In Long Distance Direct, Inc. ("LDDI"), the Commission found that the
"imposition of unauthorized charges on consumers' telephone bills is a
practice which is unjust and unreasonable within the meaning of
section 201(b) of the Act," and assessed a $40,000 penalty for each
cramming violation investigated in that case. Consistent with LDDI, we
find that each charge Main Street caused to be placed on a consumer's
bill without the consumer's authorization constitutes an independent
unjust and unreasonable practice, and thus a separate and distinct
violation of section 201(b) of the Act. There appear to be thousands
of such violations in this case for which the Commission is empowered
to assess a penalty.
24. Weighing the facts before us and taking into account the extent and
gravity of Main Street's egregious conduct, as well as its culpability
and information in the current record about its revenues, we find that
a total forfeiture amount of $4,200,000 is appropriate under the
specific circumstances of this case. As noted above, Main Street
placed unauthorized charges of at least $13.90 on more than [REDACTED]
telephone bills over a twelve-month period alone and therefore billed
nearly $[REDACTED] to consumers over that time period through its
cramming operation. The forfeiture clearly must exceed this amount in
order to serve as an adequate deterrent and reflect the apparently
intentional nature of Main Street's conduct. We therefore propose a
forfeiture in the amount of $4,200,000. In the event Main Street
continues to engage in conduct that apparently violates section
201(b)'s prohibition against unjust and unreasonable practices, such
apparent violations could result in future NALs proposing
substantially greater forfeitures and revocation of Main Street's
operating authority. Other third-party service providers are also on
notice that practices such as those engaged in by Main Street are
unjust and unreasonable, and that we may propose more significant
forfeitures in the future as high as is necessary, within the range of
our statutory authority, to ensure that such companies do not charge
consumers for unauthorized services.
IV. CONCLUSION
25. We have determined that Main Street Telephone Company apparently
violated section 201(b) of the Act as identified above. We have
further determined that Main Street Telephone Company is apparently
liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,200,000.
V. ORDERING CLAUSES
26. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 503(b)(2)(B) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(B), and
section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, that Main
Street Telephone Company is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY
FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of $4,200,000, for willful or repeated
violations of section 201(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 201(b).
27. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 1.80 of the
Commission's rules, within thirty (30) days of the release date of
this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, Main Street
Telephone Company SHALL PAY the full amount of the proposed forfeiture
or SHALL FILE a written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of
the proposed forfeiture.
28. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument,
payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission. The
payment must include the NAL/Account Number and FRN referenced above.
Payment by check or money order may be mailed to Federal
Communications Commission, P.O. Box 979088, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000.
Payment by overnight mail may be sent to U.S. Bank - Government
Lockbox #979088, SL-MO-C2-GL, 1005 Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO
63101. Payment by wire transfer may be made to ABA Number 021030004,
receiving bank TREAS/NYC, and account number 27000001. For payment by
credit card, an FCC Form 159 (Remittance Advice) must be submitted.
When completing the FCC Form 159, enter the NAL/Account number in
block number 23A (call sign/other ID), and enter the letters "FORF" in
block number 24A (payment type code). Main Street Telephone Company
will also send electronic notification to Johnny.Drake@fcc.gov on the
date said payment is made. Requests for full payment under an
installment plan should be sent to: Chief Financial Officer --
Financial Operations, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room 1-A625, Washington,
D.C. 20554. Please contact the Financial Operations Group Help Desk
at 1-877-480-3201 or Email: ARINQUIRIES@fcc.gov with any questions
regarding payment procedures.
29. The written statement, if any, must be mailed both to: Marlene H.
Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street,
SW, Washington, DC 20554, ATTN: Enforcement Bureau -
Telecommunications Consumers Division; and to Richard A. Hindman,
Division Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement
Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW,
Washington, DC 20554, and must include the NAL/Acct. No. referenced in
the caption. Documents sent by overnight mail (other than United
States Postal Service Express Mail) must be addressed to: Marlene H.
Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Office of the
Secretary, 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. Hand or
messenger-delivered mail should be directed, without envelopes, to:
Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission,
Office of the Secretary, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554
(deliveries accepted Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
only). See www.fcc.gov/osec/guidelines.html for further instructions
on FCC filing addresses.
30. The Commission will not consider reducing or canceling a forfeiture in
response to a claim of inability to pay unless the petitioner submits:
(1) federal tax returns for the most recent three-year period; (2)
financial statements prepared according to generally accepted
accounting practices; or (3) some other reliable and objective
documentation that accurately reflects the petitioner's current
financial status. Any claim of inability to pay must specifically
identify the basis for the claim by reference to the financial
documentation submitted.
31. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Notice of Apparent Liability
for Forfeiture shall be sent by Certified Mail Return Receipt
Requested and First Class mail to Main Street Telephone Company,
attention: Steven A. Augustino, Kelly Drye & Warren, LLP, Washington
Harbour, Suite 400, 3050 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20007-5108.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary
Main Street Telephone Company's principal address is 470 Norristown Road,
Suite 201, Blue Bell, Pennsylvania 19422. The "Managing Member" is listed
as Frank Scardino. Thomas Glynn is listed as Main Street's President and
CEO. Accordingly, all references in this NAL to "Main Street" also
encompass Mr. Scardino, Mr. Glynn, and all other principals and officers
of this entity, as well as the corporate entity itself.
47 U.S.C. S: 201(b).
See "BBB Issues Warning on Web Companies Linked to Adept Results," Nov.
11, 2009,
http://wisconsin.bbb.org/article/bbb-issues-warning-on-web-companies-linked-to-adept-results-13501.
See Letter from Kimberly A. Wild, Assistant Division Chief,
Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal
Communications Commission, to Main Street Telephone Company (Sept. 23,
2010) ("LOI"). The Bureau sent a second LOI to Main Street on February 25,
2011. See Letter from Kimberly A. Wild, Assistant Division Chief,
Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal
Communications Commission, to Main Street Telephone Company (Feb. 25,
2011) ("Second LOI").
See Letter from Steven A. Augustino, Counsel to Main Street Telephone
Company, to Kimberly A. Wild, Assistant Division Chief, Telecommunications
Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau, FCC (Nov. 30, 2010) ("Response to
LOI"). Main Street supplemented its response to the first LOI. See Letter
from Steven A. Augustino, Counsel to Main Street Telephone Company, to
Kimberly A. Wild, Assistant Division Chief, Telecommunications Consumers
Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (Jan. 14,
2011) ("Supplemental LOI Response"). Main Street also submitted a response
to the Bureau's second LOI. See Letter from Steven A. Augustino, Counsel
to Main Street Telephone Company, to Kimberly A. Wild, Assistant Division
Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau, FCC
(Mar. 30, 2011) ("Response to Second LOI").
Response to LOI at 3. "Dial around" long distance service allows a
telephone subscriber to bypass (i.e., dial around) the subscriber's
preselected long distance telephone carrier, if any, and instead use the
dial around carrier's long distance service for a particular phone call.
For each phone call, the subscriber must use the dial around carrier's
number and, in some instances, enter a PIN to connect the call.
Id. An additional fee is collected for Universal Service. Minutes used in
excess of 284 minutes are billed at the rate of $.049 per minute. Id.
Id.
Id. at 14.
Id. at 13. Main Street contends that the agreement between Main Street and
[REDACTED]. Id.
Response to LOI at Exhibit A.
Id.
Main Street provided [REDACTED] consumer complaints it received between
January 1, 2010 and November 1, 2010. In a supplemental response to the
LOI, dated January 14, 2011, Main Street provided a spreadsheet listing
[REDACTED] additional consumer complaints (but not providing the
supporting documentation) from the same time period, for a total of
[REDACTED] complaints. In response to the second LOI seeking more recent
complaints, Main Street provided [REDACTED] complaints and a spreadsheet
listing [REDACTED] additional complaints. In all, Main Street identified a
total of [REDACTED] complaints in response to both LOIs.
Response to LOI at 5.
Id.
Id. at 6.
Id.
47 U.S.C. S: 201(b).
See Long Distance Direct, Inc. Apparent Liability for Forfeiture,
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 3297, 3302, P: 14 (2000) ("LDDI
Forfeiture Order") (finding that the company's practices of cramming
membership and other unauthorized fees on consumer telephone bills was an
unjust and unreasonable practice in connection with communication
services).
In the other cases, the name in Main Street's records was that of the
consumer, but other identifying information was wrong.
See Complaint from [REDACTED]. Similarly, [REDACTED].
Complaint from [REDACTED].
Complaint from [REDACTED].
Complaint from [REDACTED]. Main Street recorded [REDACTED].
Complaint from [REDACTED].
Complaint from [REDACTED].
Complaint from [REDACTED]. [REDACTED]. Id.
Complaint from [REDACTED]. Main Street recorded [REDACTED].
Complaint from [REDACTED].
Complaint from [REDACTED].
Complaint from [REDACTED]. See also Complaint from [REDACTED].
Complaint from [REDACTED].
Complaint from [REDACTED]. See also Complaint from [REDACTED].
Response to Second LOI at 9-10. The number of billed customers per month
fluctuated from [REDACTED] to [REDACTED]. Id.
See Response to Second LOI at 10. Main Street went on to say that
[REDACTED]. Id. In a subsequent email, Main Street's attorney said: "Main
Street stated that it did not have the information that is requested." See
email from Steven A. Augustino, Counsel to Main Street Telephone Company,
to Mika Savir, Attorney, Telecommunications Consumers Division,
Enforcement Bureau, FCC, (Mar. 31, 2011).
See Response to LOI at 5. In its supplemental response, Main Street
acknowledges there were times when it did not employ all procedures of its
verification process. See Supplemental Response to LOI at 2.
The fact that the name and address in Main Street's records do not match
the name and address of the person billed for the service shows that even
a cursory examination of the authorization would have determined that it
was invalid. Nevertheless, because the so-called authorizations contain
names and addresses that are publicly available information, matching the
billed party's name and address is no indication that the authorization is
valid.
See, e.g., Complaint from [REDACTED]; Complaint from [REDACTED].
See Response to LOI at 2.
See Response to LOI at 6.
Indeed, we note that much of the identifying information Main Street
requests of a person when signing up for its long distance service - name,
address, email address, telephone number, and date of birth - can be
obtained through the purchase of aggregated lists of consumers that are
commercially sold or from free internet websites such as whitepages.com.
Nothing within Main Street's sign-up webpage prevents the individual who
is inputting the data from using someone else's identifying information or
otherwise falsifying that data. If the person signing up for Main Street's
service inputs someone else's telephone number, the person associated with
that telephone number will be billed by Main Street regardless of whether
the other information in the application is correct. (In some cases we
were not provided with the address of the complainant, but the name was
clearly not that of the person "authorizing" service). See, e.g.,
[REDACTED].
A practice that "convey[s] insufficient information as to the company's
identity, rates, practices, and range of services" may constitute a
violation of section 201(b). See Telecommunications Research & Action
Center & Consumer Action, 4 FCC Rcd 2157, 2159, P: 14 (Com.Car.Bur. 1989).
See Complaint from [REDACTED]. See also Complaint from [REDACTED].
See Complaint from [REDACTED].
See Complaint from [REDACTED].
See Complaint from [REDACTED].
See, e.g., Complaint from [REDACTED].
See, e.g., Complaint from [REDACTED].
See, e.g., Complaint from [REDACTED]. See Complaint from [REDACTED].
47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(1)(B); see also 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(a)(2).
47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(B); see also 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(2). In 2008 the
Commission amended section 1.80(b)(2) of the rules, 47 C.F.R. S:
1.80(b)(2), to increase the maximum forfeiture amounts in accordance with
the inflation adjustment requirements contained in the Debt Collection
Improvement Act of 1996, 28 U.S.C. S: 2461. See Amendment of Section 1.80
of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect
Inflation, Order, 23 FCC Rcd 9845 (2008) (inflation adjustment to
$150,000/$1,500,000).
47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(E).
See Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules
to Incorporate Guidelines, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17099, P:
22 (1997) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"); recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303
(1999).
Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17099, P: 22.
See Long Distance Direct, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for
Forfeiture, 14 FCC Rcd 314, 333, P: 25 (1998).
Id. at 337, P: 30.
As noted in the text, Main Street apparently caused unauthorized charges
to be placed on more than [REDACTED] bills dated between March 2010 and
February 2011. More than [REDACTED] of these bills date from June 2010 -
within one year of the instant NAL - and thus remain actionable under the
statute of limitations set forth in section 503(b)(6)(B) of the Act. 47
U.S.C. S: 503(b)(6)(B).
The $4.2 million penalty we propose is equivalent to applying a $40,000
penalty to 105 violations, but as indicated above the record shows that
Main Street's conduct involves a considerably higher number of violations
during the actionable time period.
47 C.F.R. S: 1.80.
(Continued from previous page)
(continued....)
REDACTED
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-89
7
REDACTED
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-89